SUNIL KUMAR DHIWAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — MCRCA/472/2026

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010114862026

Filing Number

MCRCA/4892/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

MCRCA/472/2026

Registration Date

27-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 14 )

Sub-Category

Other ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNIL KUMAR DHIWAR

    Adv. ANIL TRIPATHI,MEGHA MISHRA,MEGHA MISHRA, ,PRAKHAR DUTT,MEGHA MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Kumar Dhiwar, accused under Section 69 BNS for allegedly establishing physical relations with a woman on false marriage promise. The court found that both parties were consenting adults in a relationship that failed to materialize into marriage, leading to the FIR, and determined the allegations appeared to be an afterthought given the eight-month delay in lodging the complaint. Bail was granted with conditions including personal bond, surety, non-interference with witnesses, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCRCA/472/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Kumar Dhiwar, accused under Section 69 BNS for allegedly establishing physical relations with a woman on false marriage promise. The court found that both parties were consenting adults in a relationship that failed to materialize into marriage, leading to the FIR, and determined the allegations appeared to be an afterthought given the eight-month delay in lodging the complaint. Bail was granted with conditions including personal bond, surety, non-interference with witnesses, and regular court appearances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case